Report No. 2.

79/288
January 2000
An overview of purpose,
quantities, issues, practices
and trends
Flaring & venting in the
oil & gas exploration &
production industry
P
ublications
Global experience
The International Association of Oil & Gas Producers (formerly the E&P Forum) has
access to a wealth of technical knowledge and experience with its members operating
around the world in many different terrains. We collate and distil this valuable knowl-
edge for the industry to use as guidelines for good practice by individual members.
Consistent high quality database and guidelines
Our overall aim is to ensure a consistent approach to training, management and best
practice throughout the world.
The oil and gas exploration and production industry recognises the need to develop con-
sistent databases and records in certain felds. The OGPs members are encouraged to
use the guidelines as a starting point for their operations or to supplement their own
policies and regulations which may apply locally.
Internationally recognised source of industry information
Many of our guidelines have been recognised and used by international authorities and
safety and environmental bodies. Requests come from governments and non-government
organisations around the world as well as from non-member companies.
Disclaimer
Whilst every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information contained in this
publication, neither the OGP nor any of its members will assume liability for any use made
thereof.
Copyright OGP
Material may not be copied, reproduced, republished, downloaded, posted, broadcast or
transmitted in any way except for your own personal non-commercial home use. Any other
use requires the prior written permission of the OGP.
These Terms and Conditions shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws
of England and Wales. Disputes arising here from shall be exclusively subject to the jurisdic-
tion of the courts of England and Wales.
Flaring & venting in the oil & gas
exploration & production industry
Report No: 2.79/288
January 2000
Authors
These guidelines have been prepared for the OGP by the Flaring and Venting Task Force of the OGPs Environ-
mental Quality Committee. The task force members were:
John Kearns BHP Petroleum
Kit Armstrong Kit Armstrong Kit Armstrong Chevron
Les Shirvill Shell
Emmanuel Garland Elf
Carlos Simon Texaco
Jennifer Monopolis Exxon
The OGP
The International Association of Oil & Gas Producers (OGP) is the international association of oil companies
and petroleum industry organisations formed in 1974. It was established to represent its members interests at the
International Maritime Organisation and other specialist agencies of the United Nations, and to governmental
and other international bodies concerned with regulating the exploration and production of oil and gas. While
maintaining this activity, the Forum also concerns itself with the development and dissemination of best practice on
all aspects of exploration and production operations, with particular emphasis on safety of personnel and protection
of the environment. As of late 1999, the OGP has 60 members made up of 49 oil companies, 8 national oil industry
associations, and 3 technical institutes operating in 60 different countries.
i
Flaring & venting in the oil & gas exploration & production industry
2000 OGP
Executive summary............................................................................................................................................. ii
1. Introduction................................................................................................................................................. 1
2. What is faring? ............................................................................................................................................ 1
3. What is venting?........................................................................................................................................... 2
4. Safety aspects ............................................................................................................................................... 3
5. Environmental issues .................................................................................................................................... 3
5.1 Measuring quantities of gas fared or vented............................................................................................................................... 4
5.2 Carbon dioxide emissions from faring ....................................................................................................................................... 5
5.3 Methane emissions from faring and venting.............................................................................................................................. 5
6. Resource conservation .................................................................................................................................. 6
7. Conclusions .................................................................................................................................................. 7
Appendices
A. Case studies.................................................................................................................................................. 8
Case study 1: The role of market forces faring and the Nigerian oil industry....................................................................... 8
Case study 2: Research and development into carbon dioxide storage the Sleipner CO
2
Project........................................... 8
Case study 3: Technical innovations in fare design the Gullfaks Project................................................................................ 9
Case study 4: Local factors infuence fare design in Venezuela .................................................................................................. 9
B. References .................................................................................................................................................. 10
Table of contents
Figure 1 Contributions to anthropogenic CO
2
emissions; 1994..................................................................... 5
Figure 2 Contributions to global methane emissions; 1994............................................................................ 5
Figure 3 World wide CO
2
emissions from faring........................................................................................... 6
List of fgures
ii
International Association of Oil & Gas Producers
2000 OGP
The option to release gas to the atmosphere by faring
and venting is an essential practice in oil and gas pro-
duction, primarily for safety reasons. Flaring is the
controlled burning of natural gas produced in associa-
tion with oil in the course of routine oil and gas pro-
duction operations. Venting is the controlled release of
unburned gases directly into the atmosphere. The avail-
ability of a fare or a vent ensures that associated natural
gas can be safely disposed of in emergency and shut-
down situations. Where gas cannot be stored or used
commercially, the risk of fre and explosion must be
reduced by either faring or venting.
It is in an oil companys interest to minimise the amount
of gas fared in order to realise as much value as possi-
ble from the hydrocarbons being produced. A variety of
mechanisms may potentially be used to minimise far-
ing. However, it may not be technically or economically
feasible to sell some or all of the gas, for reasons that
are often a combination of geography, availability of
customers, and government energy policies. Similarly, it
may not be technically or economically feasible to rein-
ject the gas into underground reservoirs. Therefore, gas
may have to be fared as a waste product. In some cases,
venting may be preferable to faring, depending on con-
siderations such as local noise impacts, toxicity of gases
being produced, and hydrocarbon content of the gas.
For environmental and resource conservation reasons,
faring and venting should always be minimised as
much as practicable, consistent with safety considera-
tions. Flaring and venting can have local environmen-
tal impacts, as well as producing emissions which have
the potential to contribute to global warming. Avail-
able data indicate that, on a worldwide basis, gas faring
contributes only 1% of anthropogenic carbon dioxide
emissions, and faring and venting contribute only 4%
of anthropogenic methane emissions. Case studies in
this booklet illustrate some of the ways in which the
industry has sought to reduce faring and/or minimise
its impacts through commercialisation of gas reserves,
improvements in operation, maintenance and design of
fare systems, and new ways of storing associated gas.
Despite these developments, the essential point is that
no single approach to dealing with associated gas will be
appropriate for all projects or locations. Industry needs
to be able to choose from among a variety of creative
and common sense approaches to address faring and
venting concerns in specifc operations. To achieve this,
governments need to provide an energy policy frame-
work which will encourage and allow companies to
select from among very different approaches in order to
achieve the best practicable outcome in particular cir-
cumstances.
Executive summary
1
Flaring & venting in the oil & gas exploration & production industry
2000 OGP
1 Introduction
The option to release gas to the atmosphere by faring or
venting is a necessary practice in the production of oil
and gas. This booklet is intended to provide basic non-
technical information about the reasons gas is fared
1
or
vented
2
. It explains what faring and venting are, why
they occur, their links with the safety of workforces and
local populations, and relevant environmental impacts.
It also describes some of the varied steps being taken
within the industry to improve environmental perform-
ance by reducing faring and venting emissions. Case
studies are presented to illustrate some current and
experimental practices in the oil and gas production
business.
Flaring is the controlled burning of natural gas in the
course of routine oil and gas production operations.
This burning occurs at the end of a fare stack or boom.
Flare systems and their operation have been discussed
by a number of authors of technical papers. Shores
paper Making the Flare Safe (Ref. 1) provides a gen-
eral introduction to the systems used in the oil and gas
industry.
A complete fare system consists of the fare stack or
boom and pipes which collect the gases to be fared. The
fare tip at the end of the stack or boom is designed to
assist entrainment of air into the fare to improve burn
effciency. Seals installed in the stack prevent fashback
of the fame, and a vessel at the base of the stack removes
and conserves any liquids from the gas passing to the
fare. Depending on the design, one or more fares may
be required at a production location.
A fare is normally visible and generates both noise and
heat. During faring, the burned gas generates mainly
water vapour and carbon dioxide. Effcient combustion
in the fame depends on achieving good mixing between
the fuel gas and air, and on the absence of liquids. Low-
pressure pipe fares are not intended to handle liquids
and do not perform effciently when hydrocarbon liq-
uids are released into the fare system.
The percentage combustion effciency of a well designed
and operated fare is in the high ninety percent range.
Recent work by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency has shown that combustion effciencies are often
greater than 98% (Ref. 2)
3
.
Gas being fared may come from a variety of sources.
It may be excess to that which can be supplied com-
mercially to customers. It may be unburned process gas
from the processing facilities. It may be vapours col-
lected from the tops of tanks as they are being flled.
Sometimes, the gas may be from process upsets, equip-
ment changeover or maintenance. Occasionally, a pro-
duction shutdown may require the temporary faring of
all the gas stored on or arriving at a facility, to release
high pressure and avoid a catastrophic situation occur-
ring.
It is in the oil companys interest to realise as much
value as possible from the hydrocarbon accumulations
the company is producing. Therefore, it is also in the
companys interest to minimise the amount of gas being
fared. In this respect, the commercial aims of the com-
pany are consistent with good environmental practice.
2 What is faring?
1 This booklet addresses faring during oil and gas production operations. Although fares are sometimes used during
drilling to test the productivity of a potential well, the technologies and issues related to burning during these so-called
well tests are different from faring during production operations and are not discussed here.
2 There are situations where small amounts of gases escape to the atmosphere from pump seals, valves and tank spaces.
These are typically called fugitive emissions. Fugitive emissions are the subject of a number of other reports (see Ref.
3). This booklet deals only with the controlled release or venting of gases.
3 Calculations of combustion effciency do not normally include the negligible effect of carbon emitted as soot or smoke.
Further, unless the fare is very smoky, the solid carbon emitted is likely to be insignifcant. In fact, measurements made
on propane fares have shown that soot accounted for a decrease of less than 0.5% in the combustion effciency.
2
International Association of Oil & Gas Producers
2000 OGP
The aim of minimising faring can be achieved through
a variety of mechanisms which may range from mar-
keting initiatives to maintenance strategies to new tech-
nologies. The following discussion, and the case studies
which illustrate it, serve to explain how different solu-
tions are appropriate in different circumstances.
Oil accumulations always occur with some amount of
associated gas. Ideally, the associated gas will be sold to
a customer as a fuel or petrochemical feedstock. How-
ever, unlike oil, gas is not an easily transportable fuel.
A customer must be reasonably physically close in order
for the additional expense of gas processing and trans-
portation to be economically justifable. The customer
must also be willing to enter into the necessary com-
mercial arrangements. The political will also needs to
exist within government to provide an appropriate fscal
regime which will allow the project to go ahead.
However, these conditions can be diffcult to achieve in
practice. The government may have other national pri-
orities that confict with developing a supportive fnan-
cial regime. Potential customers may have other projects
they wish to pursue. Case Study No. 1 shows how
market factors can infuence faring within a particular
country or region.
Technology may also offer new ways to commercialise
associated gas reserves. Although gas itself is relatively
diffcult to transport, it can be liquefed and then trans-
ported more easily. In recent years, the exploration and
production industry has signifcantly improved gas lique-
faction technologies - technologies which until recently
could only be applied to the largest gas reserves.
In the situation where the associated gas cannot be com-
mercialised, only three options remain: 1) vent it, 2)
fare it, or 3) reinject and store it in the underground
formations from which the oil is being recovered. Rein-
jection is a practicable option for some oilfelds, but not
in all cases. In some situations, the geological nature of
the underground formations is such that the injected
gas would migrate back to the oil production wells too
easily, leading to ineffcient and energy intensive gas
recycling. Even for formations where reinjection is geo-
logically practicable, the oilfeld itself may be too small
in economic terms to support the additional reinjection
infrastructure.
Although the current viability of underground gas stor-
age is limited by geology and economics, some com-
panies are investigating ways of making underground
storage more attractive. One example of this is the Sleip-
ner carbon dioxide storage project now in operation off-
shore Norway (see Case Study No. 2).
3 What is venting?
Venting is the controlled release of gases into the atmos-
phere in the course of oil and gas production operations.
These gases might be natural gas or other hydrocarbon
vapours, water vapour, and other gases, such as carbon
dioxide, separated in the processing of oil or natural
gas.
In venting, the natural gases associated with the oil pro-
duction are released directly to the atmosphere and not
burned. Safe venting is assured when the gas is released
at high pressure and is lighter than air. Because of the
strong mixing potential of high-pressure jets, the hydro-
carbon gases discharged mix well with the air down to
safe concentrations at which there is no risk of explo-
sion. Venting is normally not a visible process. However,
it can generate some noise, depending on the pressure
and fow rate of the vented gases.
In some cases, venting is the best option for disposal of
the associated gas. For example, in some cases, a high
concentration of inert gas is present in the associated
gas. Without a suffciently high hydrocarbon content,
the gas will not burn and faring is not a viable option.
Sometimes the source of inert gas may come from the
process systems. The purging of process systems with
inert gas may, in itself, justify venting as the safest
means of disposal.
3
Flaring & venting in the oil & gas exploration & production industry
2000 OGP
4 Safety aspects
The availability of a fare or a vent is absolutely neces-
sary in oil and gas production operations. It ensures
that safe disposal of the hydrocarbon gas inventory in
the process installation is possible in emergency and
shutdown situations. Where gas cannot be stored or
used commercially, it is essential that the risk of fre and
explosion be reduced by either faring or venting.
Even where associated gas is being sold or reinjected,
small amounts of gas will still need to be fared or vented
for safety reasons. Oil and gas processing and storage
equipment is often operated at high pressures and tem-
peratures. When abnormal conditions occur, the control
and safety systems must release gas to the emergency
fare or vent to prevent hazards to the employees or
public. Good maintenance and operating strategies are
the main mechanisms used to keep this already small
volume as low as practicable.
Emergency fares are normally ftted with pilot systems
maintaining a small fame as the ignition source in case
the full size fare is activated. Recently, new fare equip-
ment designed to operate without a pilot fame, and
hence without emission when not active, was installed
on a number of Statoils production facilities in Norway.
This equipment, built around high reliability valves and
ignition systems, is described in Case Study No. 3.
Another safety issue in the application of faring and
venting is the toxicity of the gases being disposed. In
some situations, the toxicity of the gas relative to the
toxicity of its combustion products may need to be con-
sidered when choosing between faring and venting as a
means of disposal. An example would be where gas con-
taining hydrogen sulphide is being produced. Hydro-
gen sulphide is a gas that can be fatal if inhaled even at
low concentrations. However, its combustion product,
sulphur dioxide, is relatively less toxic.
People outside the oil and gas industry sometimes
express concerns about the environmental impacts of
faring and venting. One such concern relates to the
potential for global climate change. Both carbon diox-
ide and methane (the major component of natural gas)
are known as greenhouse gases associated with concerns
about global warming.
Flaring produces predominantly carbon dioxide emis-
sions, while venting produces predominantly methane
emissions. The two gases have different effects, how-
ever. The global warming potential of a kilogram of
methane is estimated to be twenty-one times that of a
kilogram of carbon dioxide when the effects are consid-
ered over one hundred years. When considered in this
context, faring will generally be preferred over venting
the same amount of gas in the design of new facilities
where suffcient amounts of gas will be produced to run
a fare.
While there are still many uncertainties in our under-
standing of the complex issue of climate change, it
makes sense to avoid the unnecessary release of carbon
dioxide or methane into the atmosphere, where practi-
cable. This points to a need to reduce emissions in a rea-
sonably practicable way. The case studies in this booklet
illustrate some of the ways the oil and gas industry is
achieving those reductions. However, it is important to
recognise that other environmental impacts also need
to be managed.
Sometimes those needs can confict with managing
greenhouse gas emissions. This confict may take a vari-
ety of forms, but usually relates to the need to manage
potential contributions to local environmental impacts,
such as air quality, alongside global issues, such as cli-
mate change. Although the global warming potential
of methane when compared to carbon dioxide usually
suggests that faring is a more environmentally attrac-
tive option than venting, neighbours of onshore oil and
gas developments sometimes prefer venting because it is
less visible and produces less noise.
In all cases, the company has the responsibility to make
parties involved aware of all aspects of the issue to ensure
reasoned decisions are taken and supported. Case Study
No. 4 illustrates the way in which local factors need to
be taken into account when designing fare systems.
5 Environmental issues
4
International Association of Oil & Gas Producers
2000 OGP
5.1 Measuring quantities of gas fared or vented
One of the challenges involved in addressing environ-
mental aspects of faring and venting is identifying
how much gas is being released. All oilfelds contain
associated gas. In much the same way that bubbles
appear when the cap is removed from a bottle of car-
bonated drink, so the associated gas is released when
oil is brought up from the deep rock strata in which
it is found. The proportion of associated gas to oil
(the so-called GOR or Gas Oil Ratio) can vary signif-
cantly between oilfelds. Moreover, in some oilfelds,
the GOR increases as more and more oil is produced,
while in others it can reduce with time. Consequently,
the amount of gas which must be dealt with can vary
dramatically from year to year between oilfelds and
even within a specifc oilfeld.
As previously discussed, some or all of this associated
gas may have to be fared or vented. Oil and gas pro-
duction systems can be complex. The gas eventually
reaching the fare or vent can come by means of a gath-
ering system from a variety of sources - pressure relief
systems, maintenance related depressurising systems,
etc. Many of these systems supply gas to the gathering
system, often only sporadically.
A major diffculty in managing faring and venting
is identifying exactly how much gas is coming from
the various sources that are contributing to the overall
volume fared and vented. There is debate within the
industry regarding the extent to which it is possible
to measure gas fow rates accurately under such varied
conditions with the measuring devices presently avail-
able on the market. Although some oil companies and
equipment manufacturers would disagree, low-pressure
gas rate measurement can be a signifcant problem.
Others believe that the best way to obtain consistent
data is to base it on estimates and calculations.
In order to provide some degree of consistency of data,
the OGP has published its own measurement and
estimation protocol (Ref. 4). This document provides
guidance on the different approaches to measuring or
estimating fare and vent volumes.
Measurements and estimates of amounts of gas fared
and vented have been produced by a number of organi-
sations. On a global scale, the Carbon Dioxide Infor-
mation Analysis Centre in the U.S. is considered one
of the most defnitive data sources (see Refs. 5 & 6).
Regional data have been produced by intergovernmen-
tal agencies, as well as by oil industry associations such
as the OGP (see e.g., Ref. 7). Some individual oil com-
panies and national oil industry associations also com-
pile faring and venting data (see e.g., Ref. 8).
Because of linkages with the climate change debate,
faring and venting emission data are often presented
in terms of the two main greenhouse gases which are
produced: carbon dioxide and methane.
5
Flaring & venting in the oil & gas exploration & production industry
2000 OGP
Atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO
2
) is produced both
from natural sources and human (anthropogenic) activ-
ities. The most important source of carbon dioxide from
human activities is the release during the consumption
of fossil fuels. Figure 1 shows that
96% of human-related emissions of
carbon dioxide are associated with the
consumption of either solid, liquid,
or gaseous hydrocarbon fuels.
The Carbon Dioxide Information
Analysis Centre also identifes two
additional contributors that make up
the remaining 4%. These are cement
manufacture and gas faring oper-
ations. On a worldwide basis, gas
faring contributes only 1% to anthro-
pogenic carbon dioxide emissions.
The relative contributions from these
sources in 1994 are presented in
Figure 1 (source, Ref. 5).
As one perspective on these data, it can be noted that
tropical deforestation with its resulting emissions to the
atmosphere is estimated to be thirty times greater than
the emissions from gas faring
4
atmosphere is estimated to be thirty times greater than atmosphere is estimated to be thirty times greater than
.
5.2 Carbon dioxide emissions from faring
5.3 Methane emissions from faring and venting
Atmospheric methane is produced
from a range of both natural sources,
such as wetlands, and human activi-
ties. Of the total sources of methane
entering the atmosphere for the period
1980-1990, 30% came from natural
sources and 70% from anthropogenic
sources (Ref. 6).
The anthropogenic sources can be
further broken down into those that
arise from the use of fossil fuels
and those from so-called biospheric
sources. Biospheric sources include
such things as release of methane from
rice farming, livestock rearing, burn-
ing of biomass fuels such as wood,
and landflls. These biospheric sources
contribute over 73% of anthropo-
genic methane emissions (Ref. 6).
Figure 1: Contributions to anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions, 1994
4 Source: United States National Aeronautic and Space Administrations Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
[http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/intro/matthews.01/]
Gas flaring Cement manufacture
Gaseous fuel use
Liquid fuel use
Solid fuel use
Flaring & venting
Gas supply
Landfill
Biomass burning
Coal mining Rice production
Livestock farming
Figure 2: Contributions to global methane emissions, 1994
6
International Association of Oil & Gas Producers
2000 OGP
6 Resource conservation
Another concern sometimes expressed is that the natu-
ral gas burned in a fare or vented to the atmosphere is
a natural resource which could be effectively used as a
source of energy or useful chemicals. Progressively, the
world is seeking ways to avoid wasting natural resources,
particularly those considered not renewable. As it is in
the interest of the industry to realise as much value as
possible from its hydrocarbon production, faring and
venting should always be minimised, consistent with
safety considerations.
Many oilfelds currently still in production were started
at a time when there was less concern about conservation
of resources
than there is today and the issue of global warming had
not been identifed. However, for all of the reasons pre-
viously described, oil companies have continued to seek
ways to reduce waste of gas and maximise the fnancial
return from the resources they are developing.
As an example, Barns (Ref. 9) describes how, in 1950,
the Indonesian oil industry fared 95% of the total
amount of associated gas that it produced. By 1985, the
amount of gas being fared had declined to 28%. Case
Study No. 1 shows in some detail the kinds of factors
that affect the speed and extent to which resource con-
servation improvements can be achieved in mature oil
producing regions.
The overall impact of these factors has been a gradual
reduction in volumes of gas fared and vented
over the last two decades. It is generally
accepted that faring and venting vol-
umes peaked in the mid 1970s (Refs.
5 & 6). As an example, Figure 3 shows
how the amount of carbon dioxide
released from faring has reduced
since that time. Increase in later years
is attributed to the general expansion
of the E&P industry.
Figure 3: Worldwide carbon dioxide emissions
from faring (MM metric tonnes)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
1995 1990 1985 1980 1975
A
n
n
u
a
l

C
O
2

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
The remaining anthropogenic sources are associated
with the use of fossil fuels and include such things
as faring and venting of natural gas, leakage from
gas supply systems, and methane released during coal
mining operations. Venting operations contribute sig-
nifcantly more methane than faring operations.
The overall contribution of the various sources of meth-
ane in the atmosphere for 1994 are shown schematically
in Figure 2 (source, Ref. 6). On a worldwide basis, far-
ing and venting operations contribute 4% to anthropo-
genic methane emissions.
7
Flaring & venting in the oil & gas exploration & production industry
2000 OGP
7 Conclusions
Flaring and venting are unavoidable processes in the
production of oil and gas. Primarily for reasons of safety,
some gas may need to be fared or vented at the pro-
duction site. In other cases, for reasons that are often a
combination of geography and availability of customers
for gas, as well as local political factors, some or all of
the associated gas produced with the oil is fared.
Industry continues to seek opportunities to reduce the
amount of gas being fared and vented. As an example,
since the mid-1970s, the amount of carbon dioxide
emitted due to faring has nearly halved, and further
reductions continue to be sought. New technologies
are being developed to assist in the commercialisation
of associated gas reserves. Operation, maintenance and
design of fare systems are improving. New ways of stor-
ing associated gas are being investigated.
While recognising the need for these improvements, it
is important to note that faring and venting are rela-
tively small contributors to anthropogenic greenhouse
gas-related emissions. Overall, faring and venting con-
tribute only 1% to anthropogenic carbon dioxide emis-
sions, and 4% to anthropogenic methane emissions.
The most important single conclusion to be drawn from
the information presented in this booklet is the need
for industry to be able to choose from among a variety
of creative and common sense approaches to address
faring and venting concerns in specifc operations.
Whether with respect to selecting among technologies,
choosing between faring or venting, or maintaining a
balance between climate change and other environmen-
tal concerns, regulatory frameworks need to allow for
best practicable choices to be made, rather than man-
dating a specifc solution. No single approach will nec-
essarily be appropriate for all projects or locations.
The intrinsic value of the gas being fared or vented
motivates the industry to manage the issue well. Gov-
ernment regulatory policy needs to be suffciently fex-
ible to facilitate the choice of the management approach
most appropriate for the project and the situation.
8
International Association of Oil & Gas Producers
2000 OGP
Appendix A case studies
Case study 1: The role of market forces faring and the Nigerian oil industry
Case study 2: Research and development into carbon dioxide storage the Sleipner
CO
2
Project
Most of Nigerias oil facilities were built in the 1960s
and 1970s. In those days gas was not a popular energy
source. Gas was more diffcult to produce and transport
than crude oil; there were few market outlets (domestic
and international) for gas and there was little environ-
mental awareness of the consequences of gas faring.
In the 1960s and 1970s, the main interest was in the
development of the countrys oil reserves. At this initial
stage, the existing oil felds did not produce signifcant
amounts of associated gas. This fact, coupled with the
lack of a domestic gas market and commercial energy
pricing policy, meant that installation of an expensive
network of compression facilities and pipelines needed
to link these scattered felds and market the gas could
not be economically justifed. Consequently, when the
frst small volumes of gas did start to fow to Nigerian
industry, they were from non-associated gas reservoirs,
which were a cheaper and more reliable source because
they were produced at high pressure and did not depend
on oil production.
One of the earliest solutions to the dilemma of gas far-
ing in Nigeria was the re-injection of produced asso-
ciated gas into underground reservoirs. SPDC (Shell
Petroleum Development Company) was the frst com-
pany in Nigeria to re-inject gas, at Oguta in 1978. How-
ever, associated gas re-injection proved not to be a viable
proposition in all cases. Most Nigerian oil reservoirs are
technically unsuitable for large-scale re-injection.
From the standpoint of export markets, Nigerias physi-
cal isolation from the nearest major international gas
markets in Europe ruled out a pipeline. This left the
technologically more complex and expensive option of
liquefying and shipping the gas. Nigerias frst liquefed
natural gas (LNG) plant is currently being installed.
There are already plans for future expansion.
However LNG is only part of the answer. Any success-
ful programme to end gas faring in Nigeria depends
on creating local markets. The key to achieving this
lies with industry, which alone can harness the sort of
volumes required. Although many industries are con-
nected to gas pipelines, the major users of large volumes
of gas so far are the National Electric Power Authority
(NEPA) which uses gas to generate electricity and the
National Fertiliser Company (NAFCON). Several new
projects that will use associated gas are being planned,
but there remains a need for more gas-based industrial
development.
For that to happen, consumers need incentives to use
gas rather than other energy sources, and suppliers need
incentives to build expensive gas gathering, compres-
sion and treatment systems. Harnessing the gas which
is currently being fared must, at the end of the day, be
an economic proposition. The price has to be right to
justify the use of gas by the consumer. The price must
also justify the suppliers investment in the necessary
plant and equipment. To achieve this, allowances have
to be made in fscal and gas pricing policies and in oper-
ating agreements. The oil industry in Nigeria is working
with the government to accomplish these objectives.
A unique event took place in October 1996 when Sta-
toil, Norways State oil and gas company, began storing
carbon dioxide under the North Sea. Statoils Sleipner
gas feld is situated 250 km west of the Norwegian coast.
As with many gas felds around the world, extracting
the gas also yields unwanted products. In this case the
gas contains 9% carbon dioxide. For the gas to be mar-
ketable, this concentration must be reduced to 2.5%.
Historically, gas contaminants have been typically
vented to the atmosphere prior to selling the natural
gas. However, Norwegian government concerns about
carbon dioxide emissions from human activity and their
potential contribution to global warming prompted a
decision to impose a carbon tax on oil and gas produc-
tion. Statoil and its partners started to look at radically
new technology in order to commercialise the Sleipner
gas reserve. They eventually decided that it might be
technically and economically feasible (considering the
carbon tax) to separate the carbon dioxide from the
hydrocarbon gas and re-inject it into deep underground
formations.
A new offshore platform, Sleipner T, containing all
the necessary equipment was sited alongside the exist-
ing production platform, Sleipner A, in 1996. On
Sleipner T, the carbon dioxide contained within the
natural gas is separated by a complex chemical process.
The extracted carbon dioxide are then compressed and
injected into a water flled sandstone reservoir 1000 m
9
Flaring & venting in the oil & gas exploration & production industry
2000 OGP
Case study 3: Technical innovations in fare design the Gullfaks Project
Case study 4: Local factors infuence fare design in Venezuela
Technological innovations pioneered in Norway could,
in some situations, provide a means of eliminating the
small amount of pilot gas which is currently needed
on conventional fare systems. The technique, which
has been pioneered on the North Sea Gullfaks feld,
involves routing gas which was previously fared back to
an existing gas export system through pipework with a
valve which can quickly divert the fow to the fare stack
if the pressure starts to increase. As an added safety
measure, the piping contains an extra loop with a rup-
ture disk to provide a second fail-safe escape route if the
valve does not open.
An automatic ignition system, comprising a gun ftted
at the top of the fare stack to shower specially-formu-
lated pellets at a steel plate, provides sparks to light the
fare when it is needed. Under normal conditions, the
piping in the fare stack is protected against a build up
of explosive mixtures by being flled with an inert gas
from a nitrogen generation plant.
A critical factor in developing the system was being
able to convince the Norwegian safety regulator that
the system would meet their requirements. The break-
through was achieved when it was decided to add the
loop with the rupture disk. This ensured that there
would be two possible routes by which gas could reach
the fare stack in an emergency.
After a number of start-up problems, the Gullfaks C
platform fare has now been extinguished while faring
on Gullfaks A is down by 60% and will end in the near
future. If the experience proves positive, steps to reduce
faring on some other platforms are likely. However, the
technique is only suitable for use with inclining fare
stacks rather than the vertical stacks ftted on many of
the existing oil developments around the world.
PDVSA, the Venezuelan national oil company, uses a
high-pressure gas injection system to improve oil recov-
ery in its operations in the eastern part of the country.
The high-pressure gas injection system employs the
largest high-pressure gas compressors for well injection
in the world. One of the necessary components of this
system is equipment which will safely fare the com-
pressed gas in the event of either planned or unplanned
shutdowns.
In the case of this gas injection project, several local
environmental constraints presented a unique set of
problems for system designers:
Due to the very high profle nature of the project
and the plants location near a major industrial/
residential city, a 100% smokeless fare operation
was required.
A relatively small plot was available on which to site
the fare system. The compression plant is situated
near a major highway and is surrounded by existing
production and oil processing plant facilities.
Due to the proximity of a nearby international air-
port, and other local safety considerations, there
was a need to restrict such factors as fare stack
height and heat radiation intensity.
The system needed to be capable of handling a wide
range of gas fowrates.
An unreliable local power supply produced the
requirement that all fare system controls be fail-
safe with a 24-hour automatic battery back-up.
One of the key design considerations was the need for
smokeless operation within the limitations imposed by
stack height and radiation. A fare design had to be
selected which would not only provide optimal mixing
of gas and air to produce virtually smokeless operation
over the entire fowrate range, but would also produce a
below the seabed. Using this system, over 1 million
tonnes per year of carbon dioxide is being pumped
below the ocean foor instead of the atmosphere.
This technology is still in its infancy, and much will
be learned from its use on Sleipner. The owners of the
feld have agreed that an international programme is
to be formed in order to monitor and research the per-
formance of this facility so that the underground stor-
age of carbon dioxide can be more fully understood.
The International Energy Agencys Greenhouse Gas
Research and Development Programme is working with
Statoil to establish and manage this programme. The
major task for this group will be to monitor the sta-
bility of the underground reservoir and to observe the
development of the expanding carbon dioxide bubble
in order to ensure that the gas remains within the reser-
voir.
10
International Association of Oil & Gas Producers
2000 OGP
small but very intense fame with low radiation effects.
To handle the full fow range, a three-stack array was
installed that included two high-pressure and one low-
pressure fare tip.
Before installation, the fares were tested individually
and collectively and performed smokelessly within the
radiation limits over the full specifed range of opera-
tion. Pre-installation checks also included a check of the
battery back-up system and the instant re-light system
that immediately re-ignites the fare (or shuts in the gas
fow) if the fare goes out for any reason.
Appendix B references
1. Making the Flare Safe, David Shore, Journal of Loss Prevention in Process Industries, Vol 9, No. 6,
pp363-381, 1996.
2. Flare effciency Study, EPA-600/2-83-052, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, July
1983.
3. IEA Report No. PH2/7 (Jan 1997), Methane Emissions from the Oil and Gas Industry.
4. OGP Technical Report No. 2.59/197 (Sept 1994), Methods for Estimating Atmospheric Emissions from E&P
Operations.
5. Marland G., Andres R. J., Boden T. A., Johnston C., & Brenkert A., Global, Regional, and National CO2
Emissions Estimates from Fossil Fuel Burning, Cement Production, and Gas Flaring: 1751-1995 (revised January
1998), Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Centre, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of
Energy, Oak Ridge, Tenn., U.S.A.
6. Stern, D. I., and R. K. Kaufmann, Estimates of Global Anthropogenic Methane Emissions: 1860-1994. Trends
Online: A Compendium of Data on Global Change. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Centre, Oak Ridge
National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tenn., U.S.A., 1988
7. OGP Report No. 2 66/216 (Dec 1994), Atmospheric Emissions from the Offshore Oil and Gas Industry in
Western Europe.
8. Greenhouse Gas Emissions - Emissions and Action Plans. The Australian Petroleum Exploration and Production
Industry Association. August 1997.
9. Barns D. W., and Edmonds J. A. 1990. An Evaluation of the Relationship between the Production and Use
of Energy and Atmospheric Methane Emissions. US Department of Energy, Washington D.C., DOE/NBB-
0088P.
What is OGP?
The International Association of Oil & Gas Producers encompasses the worlds leading
private and state-owned oil & gas companies, their nationaland regional associations,
and major upstream contractors and suppliers
Vision
To work on behalf of all the worlds upstream companies to promote responsible and
proftable operations.
Mission
To represent the interests of the upstream industry to international regulatory and
legislative bodies.
To achieve continuous improvement in safety, health and environmental performance
and in the engineering and operation of upstream ventures.
To promote awareness of Corporate Social Responsibility issues within the industry
and among stakeholders.
Objectives
To improve understanding of the upstream oil and gas industry, its achievements and
challenges, and its views on pertinent issues.
To encourage international regulators and other parties to take account of the industrys
views in developing proposals that are effective and workable.
To become a more visible, accessible and effective source of information about the
global industry, both externally and within member organisations.
To develop and disseminate best practices in safety, health and environmental
performance and the engineering and operation of upstream ventures.
To improve the collection, analysis and dissemination of safety, health and
environmental performance data.
To provide a forum for sharing experience and debating emerging issues.
To enhance the industrys ability to infuence by increasing the size and diversity of
the membership.
To liaise with other industry associations to ensure consistent and effective approaches
to common issues.